 English summary

PART 1 : MARRIAGE AND MARITAL INTERVENTION

A theme that cuts through these chapters is that research on marriage and marital intervention
must become more specific and differentiated. The science of marriage and marriage intervention
research is entering a new stage that goes beyond global impressions or towards deeper understanding.
they embody new excitement and energy and point the way forward for research.

1.Critical View Of Marital Satisfaction

Robert L. Weiss
perhaps we should question the usefulness of assessing the state of intimate relationships by
asking for a global evaluation of levels of happiness. After all, a global assessment of the relationship
requares participants to construct a simplified, relatively abstract construction of a unique relational
history. It may be theoretically useful to ascertain what other types of evaluative referents may be made
about intimate interaction. For example, why not ask participants about relationship change,
transformations, challenge, crises, or growth as indicators of relational "health"? Perhaps satisfaction
has outlived its usefulness for determining why and how relationships "work" or are supposed to work.

-ERBERT AND DUCK, 1997, p. 110 (emphasis added)

the title of the conference paper that gave rise to this chapter was "don quixote glimpses the
windmills of marital bliss" then, is here. my concern was withthe theories and methods fashioned to
understand that quintessential componentof marital quality, marital satisfaction, arguably a most
important aspect of adultintimacy, yet so elusive in its promise. ‘‘Marital bliss’’ is transitory and not as
readily accessed as ‘‘marital satisfaction”, rather it serves to draw attention to the limitations of the
search It self. how family science methods can be understood as a respectable variable, thcorrelates of
which lead to formulating testable basic research questions as well as facilitating important preventative
and ameliorative interventions that address adult intimacy ? As with the idealistic Don, are we also
pursuing an elusive truth? The present journey in search of marital satisfaction selects from among
attractive ideas from the literature. I explore how the construct of marital satisfaction has infiltrated the
behavioral science approach to adult intimacy, highlighting where necessary limiting assumptions. The
main issue is marital quality, which includes subjective and objective methods for defining and assessing
satisfaction. In this critique of marital satisfaction it will become obvious that a broadened view of
satisfaction, one that goes beyond subjective assessment, might be necessary for understanding marital
quality. The vastness of, and the continuing scholarly interest in, this literature presents a challenge to
anyone who would deign to mine it for original ideas, new systematization, or new strategies for
investigating satisfaction. For example, Whisman (1997) reported finding over 2,500 citations to marital
or marriage satisfaction in the 30-year period from 1967 to 1997; the proliferation continues unabated
(see also Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000). Gottman (1982) once observed that the goal of marital
research is to understand satisfaction variance. Implied in this simple but elegant statement is the belief
that marital satisfacion.
 How Satisfying Is “Satisfaction”

Satisfaction is at once a subjective experience, a prevailing sentiment, and an attitude, all of which
are based on intraindividual factors that influence the perceived quality of marital interactions; these in
turn take place and develop within larger familial and social contexts. The evaluations of outsiders, in
their roles of researchers and therapists, are also part of the mix in setting standards of satisfaction—
boxes within boxes within boxes. in research looking for correlations with levels of satisfaction, this also
functions as an independent variable. The focus is on conditions that result as a consequence of
satisfaction or conditions that induce changes in satisfaction. Thus the pursuit of the correlates of
satisfaction is often bidirectional truly an all-purpose construct! Correlation does not establish
unidirectional causation, although concomitance nevertheless whets the appetite for understanding.
The semantics of satisfaction are most interesting. Writers often relabel existing definitions of
satisfaction by establishing correlations among newer and older selfreport measures in order to
demonstrate the construct validity of the new measures. Such correlational relabeling does not actually
break new ground. The problem lies not in these efforts but rather in the nature of the beast. Although
our search for understanding may not be entirely quixotic, marital satisfaction may just turn out to be
more elusive than even we idealists dreamed.

 A Protean Construct

Marital satisfaction (or, more generally, couple relationship satisfaction) is a peculiar construct not
only because of the multiplicity of meanings it derives but also because of its persistence in relation
to its total subjectivity. Only couples can report their level of satisfaction. The quest for objectivity
will always rest on a simple fact: satisfaction is based on statements made by individuals. This cannot
be denied. Why or on what basis someone (or a researcher) makes such a statement is an interesting
epistemological problem (discussed below). Be warned, there is actually no magic in measuring
marital satisfaction: people answer questions about their satisfaction (or lack thereof). Why should
reported content matter? Reported unhappiness in one's marriage has a variety of implications for
one's behavior, cognition, and health, as repeatedly demonstrated in the literature. For example,
Coyne et al. (2001) showed that reported marital satisfaction predicted length of survival for men
with congestive heart failure. These findings illustrate how self-reported marital satisfaction can
serve as a proxy for correlates that may predict satisfaction. That is, couples' reported satisfaction
may contain information about the quality of interactions within the family. Marital satisfaction is
something special because its meaning covers many things in our daily lives. Does this also apply to
other forms of satisfaction, such as job satisfaction? Satisfaction becomes the most important thing
when we invest our hopes, expectations and efforts in people and situations that can control our
destiny. A negative example of marital stability is stability equivalent to a marriage that has not
ended in divorce or been terminated. Thus, stability can only be measured by length of service.
Survival analysis is one way to measure the temporal trajectory before a particular event (e.g. in
medicine, how long a patient survives before experiencing a predictable outcome). But is it always a
good proxy? Both Gottman (1993) and Fitzpatrick (1988) have independently developed marital
typologies, based on a variety of self-reports and observational assessments, that describe couples
who have stable relationships but are equally likely to feel satisfied and dissatisfied. Davila and
Bradbury (2001) also pointed out a possible disconnect between satisfaction and stability using
attachment as a person variable. Rogge and Bradbury (1999) found that communication and violence
differentially influenced satisfaction and stability. Marriages remain stable for a variety of exogenous
reasons (e.g., cultural prohibitions on divorce, economics, religion, and law, etc.). For example,
consider cultural traditions that do not make marital satisfaction a primary factor. In Western culture,
 marital satisfaction is a construct based on acceptance of a voluntary, rather than mandatory, format
of marriage (cf. also Berscheid & Lopes, 1997, pp. 139–141). The success of a marriage is said to
depend on the personal happiness of each individual, not on the fulfillment of cultural expectations,
the continuation of “love” (in some form), “Failure” means no longer capable. Maintain your
commitment to love, whether because you chose the wrong person, or because your needs are no
longer being met. After all, failure means "time to move on", because of satisfaction. aspects of
marital quality: satisfaction as a construct is always subjective, basically a self-report, but has real
and experiential significance in everyday life. Marital satisfaction plays an important role in applied
work; Knowledge of satisfaction factions certainly has implications for the prevention of marital
distress and intervention in so-called distressed relationships. Below I explore the conditions under
which the marital satisfaction construct is useful and under which it may fail.

 How shall We Know Thee ?

It has become customary in the marital satisfaction literature over the past 2 decades to distinguish
between connotations of satisfaction based on subjective and objective information (e.g., Fincham &
Bradbury, 1987; Norton, 1983; Sabatelli, 1988). Do descriptions of satisfaction indicate relationship
adjustments or couples' evaluations of the quality of their experiences? This distinction is important when
items measuring self-reported marital satisfaction reflect evaluative aspects or qualities of a relationship
(“Our marriage is fine,” “I am happy with my partner”) and marital adjustment items refer to evaluative
aspects or qualities of a relationship. a relationship. to relationship processes (e.g., conflicts, agreements,
and decisions regarding household chores, among others).

The Promise Of Objektivity

The introduction of marital adjustment offers the promise of objectivity because adjustment shifts
the focus of satisfaction to observable events. The construction of satisfaction no longer relies on
statements made about an inner state; the focus shifts to achievement. In earlier behavioral models
(Weiss, 1978) marital quality was said to depend on transactions between partners, assessed not
only by self-report, but also by controls. This behavior-based marriage suggests four areas, or
categories of tasks, that partners must master. These categories require skills in communication,
support, problem solving and behavior change. These achievement categories are cross-tabulated
with specific interaction events, grouped according to function, for example, appetitive
(socioemotional) transactions, instrumental transactions, and “by-products.” These achievement
categories are cross-tabulated with specific interaction events, grouped according to function, for
example, appetitive (socioemotional) transactions, instrumental transactions, and “by-products.”
(Passionate transactions are transactions that partners seek for pleasure and satisfaction;
instrumental transactions refer to work-related functions in daily relationship life; byproducts are
defined as forces that disrupt or have the potential to separate partners.) Resulting matrix (4
milestones with 3 interaction categories) provide a template that can be used to assess how well a
pair functions in each of the 12 cells; interventions are specifically designed to improve areas of
deficiency (Weiss, 1978). Although this model defines marital adjustment functionally in terms of
what partners do, by focusing on their interactions, it also defines a priori what is necessary for a
quality relationship. And therein lies the problem. Who among us determines the criteria for an ideal
relationship?
Prescriptive Satisfaction
There is a long tradition in the history of marital satisfaction that determines the ideal
marriage (e.g., Erbert & Duck, 1997). The early behavioral model (Weiss, 1978), described above,
attempted a priori to define satisfaction as a synthesis of specific relationship transactions that were
deemed essential if participants were to experience satisfaction; even as a skills-based template, it
remains prescriptive.

Satisfaction In The Mind Of the Beholder

Fundamentally there is an epistemological challenge for both partners and researchers: how do they
or we “know” satisfaction (Weiss, 1978)? In this section I discuss several issues relevant to couples'
knowledge of their satisfaction, issues of cognition. Self-reported satisfaction is likely to confound
surrounding or background (distal) conditions with more salient (proximal) events in daily
relationship life. because in general someone is optimistic. is open to experience, and has self-
efficacy in various aspects of daily life, reflecting ambient, trait, or dispositional happiness. However,
the word “happy” may depend on specific events (e.g., limited to time and situation). Self-reported
relationship satisfaction may reflect (a) global or ambient “experience” (the evaluative component
discussed above) or (b) the experience of significant (everyday) events (the actual transactions of the
day). What do married couples base their judgments on? For example, satisfaction as a cognition or
attitude may be separable from events, such as the evaluative component of marital satisfaction
( Fincham & Bradbury, 1987 , Norton, 1983 ) discussed above. Evaluative judgments of one's
relationships are just one floating environmental factor, as it were, independent of input from
everyday relationship accomplishments. The overriding sentiment hypothesis (Weiss, 1980) concerns
the disconnect between cognitions (judgments) and the goods and services (events) that partners
actually exchange on a daily basis.